Mr Troi wrote:
One question for you is: Would you kill a Borg that was coming at you? What if another one came? Then another? When would you stop and just give up or run away? Would you destroy a Borg cube headed for a populated planet? What about two cubes? What percentage of the Borg are you comfortable destroying? 100% just isn't fair?
Well, in this fictional Trek universe we're given a nice and clean option of doing that to all of them because they all act exactly the same. They each would pose the exact same threat as every other one.
Also, even if you think it's something you wouldn't do, Picard should have done it and then gone and sought counseling or had a beer or just shut up and the rest of the Federation or even the galaxy would rename whole planets after him.
Oh, and please learn the difference between killing and murder!
That was more than one question.
I see your point but I think we are talking about two completely different scenarios and this has already been debated here. Trekker 4747 explained that the Federation was in a "cold war" with the Borg at the time of the I,Borg episode and not involved in the type of situation that you have described. You should go back and read page 2 and page 3 and that ought to explain it for you.
Also JRS pointed out that severed Borg drones can return to their former state - like Picard and Seven of Nine. The problem is that a person who has been assimilated by the Borg is not killed (or murdered) and his memory has not been erased. The individual continues to exist but he is overwhelmed by the collective. The objective has to be to try to liberate the individuals from the collective rather than destroying them. This is a very difficult thing to do though. However, it is a big problem for those who argue that the Federation should have wiped them all out.
You ask me to please learn the difference between killing and murder? My comment about someone having to point out that killing babies was wrong came from a post written by Mr. Laser Beam and he wrote: "No, because killing babies is always wrong."
My point was that advocating genocide, murder or killing babies - things like that - goes against the ethos of Star Trek: The Next Generation in the most clear-cut way possible. It would be impossible to miss the point of the show more.
Ha! You also saw my bad habit of saying "That's the one thing!" then I go on to list 5 things that either irk me or make me laug or whatever. Now I'm doing it withj questions! I have to quit that.